Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,847
- Reactions
- 10,689
There is always a chance. How small or how big a chance is the question.
It would be fortuitous if there was video evidence, which I doubt.
gg
Do you believe there is any chance Thomson did not in fact do what is alleged?
Having finally reached the point where he has to try and explain himself, perhaps the next part of the strategy is to try and create a sufficient atmosphere of doubt in the independents.There is always a chance. How small or how big a chance is the question.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/an-incredible-tale-20120512-1yjnm.htmlThomson will draw heavily on the line of defence he filed with Fair Work Australia in his explanation to Parliament on Monday week. Expect a mixture of outright denials and argued technicalities. In essence: it wasn't me, or it wasn't my responsibility.
His goal is simple: to cast enough doubt to ensure his fellow MPs conclude they cannot judge these matters with any certainty, and must leave any action to the courts. It may be enough, given the strong interest - both in personal and policy terms - that the crossbenchers have in letting this government run full-term. Thomson might still face some form of censure or suspension, but they are deeply reluctant for Parliament to play judge and jury.
It was not lost on several MPs this week that the Senate bid farewell to Nick Sherry, the Labor minister who rebuilt his life and political career after a suicide attempt in 1997 in the face of claims - of which he was later cleared - of misused travel entitlements. For some MPs, even the seed of doubt is enough to make them think twice. That's all Craig Thomson needs.
Do you believe there is any chance Thomson did not in fact do what is alleged?
Do you believe there is any chance Thomson did not in fact do what is alleged?
Ah, excellent point. I suppose he'll claim he was customarily careless about checking his credit card statements.No chance. If his version is correct, then he would have been on the lookout from the very start for these anomalies. Don't forget, he saw the incoming credit card statements and signed off on them.
Why isnt the media getting the truth from the brothel ?
I agree. They shouldn't be going off half-cocked!
!!
I'm surprised 60 Minutes hasn't got to them by now.
That story would rate it's head off, perhaps legal complcations ???
...So they can be as defamatory as they like now, be prepared to defend the truth of their claim (this sounds easy) and know that Thomson hasn't got funds now he's an 'independent'....
Are you sure about that, Stumpy? I would have thought alp would continue to pay his legal bills provided he doesn't resign and votes with them?
OK, at the risk of coming across as a bleeding heart, I am concerned about Craig Thompsons mental health after that interview. I am in good company too. Introducing, the thoughts of Mr Mark Latham...
http://www.boss.afr.com.au/p/opinion/human_frailty_made_manifest_bD4EoJBBEqV7ii1dtDudPN
"... After the Oakes interview, they should have little doubt of Thomson’s delusional state of mind. No matter the political outcomes at stake, such a person is in need of pastoral support and consideration. We all know of instances when the pressures of parliamentary life have been too severe for individuals to handle.
Abbott’s first concern should be a matter of common humanity: giving Thomson and the people close to him time and space to sort out his thinking. I say this, not as an apologist for the unions or the Australian Labor Party, rather, the time has come to see beyond the politics of the HSU controversy and think about the man himself..."
Good Lord, that from Mark Latham of all people!
Totally disagree with his premise that Thomson is deserving of our 'pastoral support'.
He is simply desperate and trying stupidly desperate measures in the hope of holding on.
No one comes remotely close to believing his fantastic defence.
Tim Costello just now on QandA has said similar things re: pastoral support. Look, there is a massive context here which has significant public impacts (ie. the continuing Labor Govt), but even watching the interview with Laurie Oakes on Saturday morning, I could not help feel that here was a guy under immense pressure and we are probably watching the beginnings of whoknowswhat?
I agree, his defence is ridiculous at best. Its just so far beyond the pale. Which, to some extent is my point...
My two cents
OK, at the risk of coming across as a bleeding heart, I am concerned about Craig Thompsons mental health after that interview. I am in good company too. Introducing, the thoughts of Mr Mark Latham...
http://www.boss.afr.com.au/p/opinion/human_frailty_made_manifest_bD4EoJBBEqV7ii1dtDudPN
"... After the Oakes interview, they should have little doubt of Thomson’s delusional state of mind. No matter the political outcomes at stake, such a person is in need of pastoral support and consideration. We all know of instances when the pressures of parliamentary life have been too severe for individuals to handle.
Abbott’s first concern should be a matter of common humanity: giving Thomson and the people close to him time and space to sort out his thinking. I say this, not as an apologist for the unions or the Australian Labor Party, rather, the time has come to see beyond the politics of the HSU controversy and think about the man himself..."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...edo-is-laughable/story-e6frgd0x-1226355234732IT is always dangerous when legal doctrines are taken hostage by politicians and sharpened into rhetorical weapons. A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the presumption of innocence in the Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper cases.
By invoking this principle, Julia Gillard has tried to stifle public discussion and parliamentary scrutiny of events that are a matter of legitimate public interest.
As respected Brisbane QC Tony Morris pointed out in The Spectator Australia this week, the presumption of innocence is a legal rule about the burden of proof in criminal trials. It exists only within the context of a criminal trial and can be understood only as an aspect of the laws governing criminal evidence and procedure. As the author of the canonical text on the law of evidence, Rupert Cross, says: "When it is said that an accused person is presumed to be innocent, all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt."
None of this would come as a surprise to a competent lawyer, although it is apparently lost on the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon. A proper understanding of the presumption of innocence tells us several things about the debate, beyond what it reveals about the venality of this government.
Since the presumption of innocence applies only to the criminal law, it has no relevance to civil claims. At the moment, the claims against Thomson and Slipper are civil claims only: in Thomson's case, the findings of the Nassios investigation which, Fair Work Australia has announced, will give rise to civil proceedings, and in Slipper's case, the Ashby sexual harassment claims.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?